2019 Crime Perception Survey Results

The 2019 Rockford
Community Perceptions of
Crime Survey: Results
munity Survey: Results
Center for Criminal Justice Research,
munity
Policy andSurvey:
Practice Results
& Center for Urban Research and Learning
munity Survey: Results
Prepared by:
Christopher M. Donner, Ph.D.
Kirsten Kolis
Holly Michalak
David E. Olson, Ph.D.
Amanda Ward, Ph.D.
Center for Criminal Justice Research,

Policy and Practice
& Center for Urban Research and Learning
October 2019
Prepared by: Christopher Donner, Ph.D.
Teresa Neumann, MA
January 2018
David E. Olson, Ph.D.
1
Henry Otto
John Specker, MA
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................2
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................5
Methodology .......................................................................................................................................6
Sample ................................................................................................................................................7
Data Analysis Strategy ........................................................................................................................9
Findings: Responses to Individual Questions ..........................................................................................9
Measuring Procedural Justice: Introduction and Methods ...................................................................36
Creation of Scales to Measure Procedural Justice, Police Effectiveness, and Multivariate Analyses ....38
Police Procedural Justice ...................................................................................................................39
Winnebago County Court Procedural Justice .....................................................................................41
Police Effectiveness ...........................................................................................................................40
References ............................................................................................................................................44
Executive Summary
Over the past three years, the Rockford Police Department, other county and state criminal
justice agencies, and community groups and organizations have engaged in the planning,
design, and implementation of a focused deterrence project, facilitated by the Region 1
Planning Council (R1PC) and Loyola University Chicago. Because of the importance of the
community, part of the planning process also involved gauging citizens’ perceptions of crime
and disorder in Rockford, what they see as appropriate responses to violent crime and those
who commit violent crime, as well as their perceptions of the Rockford Police Department
and the Winnebago County Court system. To accomplish this, an initial survey was
administered electronically (i.e. internet-based) between September 25, 2017 and
November 30, 2017, with more than 1,300 Rockford residents completing this initial survey .
Following a full year of the focused deterrence initiative being implemented, a second
round of the community survey was administered between June 6, 2019 and June 25, 2019,
and more than 1,200 Rockford residents completed this second survey.
CENTER FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESEARCH, POLICY AND PRACTICE | Rockford Community Survey
Results, October 2019
3
A summary of the key findings from the survey include:
 The majority of survey respondents agreed that people in their neighborhood are
close-knit and have the same values and beliefs, but most did not agree that
people in their neighborhood get together or talk to each other often. Renters
(relative to homeowners) were less likely to agree with these statements
regarding those in their neighborhood (Tables 2 through 5).
 The survey indicates that the community is largely supportive of an approach that
includes both accountability (punishment) and rehabilitation (services and
treatment) to reduce violence. The majority of survey respondents agreed that
people who commit violent crime should be punished severely, and the majority
of respondents also agreed that those who commit violent crime need to be
provided with services and treatment to change their behavior. The respon dent
characteristics that had the strongest influence on their views regarding
punishment and treatment was age and perception of Rockford’s safety. The older
the respondent, the greater their support for punishment and the lower their
support services and treatment. Additionally, respondents who felt that Rockford
had become a less safe place to live in the past year were much more likely to
support punishment and less likely to support services and treatment (Tables 6
through 8).
 The crime issues that respondents were the most concerned about included shootings,
robbery, gang activity, and sale of drugs. Thirty-five percent or more of respondents to the
survey indicated they were “very concerned” about these problems in their neighborhood.
These specific crime issues were also the areas where respondents were most likely to
indicate the police should give the “most attention” (Tables 11 and 12).
 Less than one-half of respondents felt that violent crime and crime in general increased in
their neighborhood over the past year. Most respondents indicated they believed that
violent crime and crime in general "stayed about the same." Both black respondents and
men were less likely to have perceived that crime increased in their neighborhoods (Tables
14 and 15).
 The majority of respondents were satisfied with the policing in their neighborhood, with
no statistically significant differences in the rating of police satisfaction across respondent
education level, home ownership, or employment status. Older respondents tended to
have a higher level of satisfaction with policing in their neighborhood, while those who
perceived that crime in their neighborhood had increased over the past year were less
likely to be satisfied with policing (Tables 19 and 20).
 The majority (56.7%) of survey respondents indicated that they had contact with the
Rockford Police in the past year. Of those who reported contact with the police, the
majority (70% or more) were satisfied with how they were treated and agreed that the
officer clearly explained their actions and appeared to know what they were doing (Tables
23 and 24).
4
 The majority of respondents agreed with statements indicating that the Rockford Police
treat residents with respect, are honest, treat people fairly, care about the community,
treat everyone equally, and take the time to listen. When responses to these survey items
were combined to create a Police Procedural Justice scale, the average score across all
respondents combined was positive. Ratings among black respondents on this scale
tended to be lower than other racial groups and the rating among renters was lower than
homeowners. (Tables 25 and 30).
 The majority of respondents agreed that the Winnebago County court system treats
residents with respect and is honest. Respondents were split regarding the Winnebago
County Court System treating people fairly, caring about the community, treating
everyone in Rockford equally, and taking time to listen to people. When responses to
these survey items were combined to create a Court Procedural Justice scale, the average
score across all respondents combined was slightly positive. Ratings among black
respondents on this scale tended to be lower than other racial groups and the rating
among renters was lower than homeowners. Further, those who felt that Rockford was
less safe had lower ratings of Court Procedural Justice. However, the older the
respondent, the higher the rating on the Court Procedural Justice scale (Tables 26 and 31).
 The majority of survey respondents rated the police as satisfactory or better at fighting
crime, being visible in the streets, treating people fairly and being available when you
need them. When responses to these survey items were combined to create a Police
Effectiveness scale, the average score across all respondents combined was slightly
positive. On this scale, older respondents had higher ratings of Police Effectiveness,
whereas Black respondents and those who are unemployed had lower ratings of Police
Effectiveness. Those who felt that Rockford was less safe also had lower ratings of Police
Effectiveness.
5
Introduction
Over the past three years, the Rockford Police Department, other county and state criminal
justice agencies, and community groups and organizations have engaged in a planning
process to design and implement a focused deterrence project, facilitated by the Region 1
Planning Council (R1PC) and Loyola University Chicago. The Illinois Criminal Justice
Information Authority provided partial support for the planning and operation of the project
through a grant made available by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Assistance. 1 The planning included the development of a strategy to identify individuals at
highest risk for engaging in violent crime who are both under the ju risdiction of the justice
system (i.e., on probation or Mandatory Supervised Release/Parole) , as well as those the
police have information on that may be at risk of committing, or being the victim of, violent
crime. Under the strategy, these individuals are identified, warned of the risks they face for
continued involvement in crime or victimization, and offered a range of services to address
their criminogenic needs and to reduce their risk. One of the key elements of any violence
reduction strategy is the support, cooperation and involvement of the community and this is
an important component to the focused deterrence project in Rockford.
Because of the importance of the community, part of the planning process and evaluation of
the program involved gauging citizens’ perceptions of crime and disorder in Rockford, what
they see as appropriate responses to violent crime and those who commit violent crime, as
well as their perceptions of the Rockford Police Department and the Winnebago County
Court system. Obtaining this information from a broad and large number of Rockford
residents was accomplished through an on-line, voluntary and anonymous, 85-question
survey. The survey was created through a collaborative effort between the participating
justice agencies, the Region 1 Planning Council (R1PC), as well as the Center for Criminal
Justice Research, Practice and Policy and the Center for Urban Research and Learning, both
housed at Loyola University Chicago. The population of interest consisted of individuals that
live, work, or go to school in Rockford. Question topics in the survey included: perceptions
about crime and safety in their neighborhood; perceptions of police and the courts and how
they treat people; community involvement and relationships among neighb ors; available
sources of information about crime in Rockford, and personal demographic information
(e.g., gender, race or ethnicity, age, education level).
1This project was supported by Grant #2016-DJ-BX-0083, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, through the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. Points of view or
opinions contained within this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or
policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, or the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.
6
Methodology
The survey was administered electronically (i.e. internet -based) using Opinio software to
the target population between June 6, 2019 and June 25, 2019. Respondents were not
offered, nor did they receive, any direct compensation for completing the anonymous
survey. To recruit potential respondents, Rockford citizens were notified of the surve y via
various social media websites (e.g., Facebook) and websites of various Rockford and
Winnebago County agencies, organizations, and elected officials (e.g., city webpage). In
addition, media outlets in the Rockford area also were made aware of the surv ey, and their
subsequent coverage of the survey also made residents aware of the opportunity to
participate. Thus, participants were gained as they encountered the notification through
their own voluntary travel to Rockford websites and, potentially, throu gh subsequent
notices via social media, news outlets, and word-of-mouth.
The research team was committed to adhering to ethical guidelines during the data
collection process. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Loyola University Chicago
approved the survey as well as the protocols for survey dissemination and data storage. Due
to the online nature of the data collection, subjects did not sign a written consent
document. However, they were informed of the voluntary nature and anonymity of the
survey, and granted consent to participate in the survey by clicking a button on their
computer screen. When the subjects arrived at the survey website, they were greeted by
informed consent language. If they agreed to participate, they begun the survey by clicking
a button that said, “Begin survey.” Subjects were informed that by pressing that button,
they were voluntarily agreeing to participate. The survey was created to be completed
anonymously, and therefore written documented consent would violate the anonymity of
participation. Those whose primary language was Spanish also had the opportunity to
participate. The first page of the online survey had information, in Spanish directing
Spanish-speaking individuals (“If you would like to take this survey in Spanish, please click
here”). Once individuals clicked that button, the website took them to an informed consent
page that was in Spanish. That page contained the same “Begin survey” button (in Spanish),
with the same informed consent language as the English versio n.
7
Sample
More than 1,200 people participated in the survey, although the number of respon ses to
each individual question varied slightly due to some questions not being answered by all
respondents. A majority (59.2%) of respondents were female. The median age of the sample
was 45.83 years of age (SD=14.72), and approximately one-seventh (16.4%) of the sample
was 55 years of age or older. When compared with 2010 Rockford Census data , 2 minority
populations were under-represented in the sample: African-Americans comprised 4.3% of
the sample, but 20.5% of the city population based on Census data, and Latino/Hispanic
comprised 4.7% of the sample, compared to 15.8% of the census population. Whites were
overrepresented in the sample, comprising 85.3% of the sample that completed the survey
versus 65.1% of the city population based on the Census. 3 Persons of other races comprised
5.7% of the sample. Nearly half of the sample (54.8%) indicated that they were married, and
more than two-thirds (71.1%) indicated that they had children. Homeowners represented
over three-fourths (76.6%) of sample, whereas renters comprised 23.4% of the respondents.
Over three-fourths (79%) of the sample stated that they were currently employed. In terms
of education, the modal category was ‘some college,’ accounting for 26.2% of the sample.
Finally, respondents were somewhat represented from all areas of the city. The three
highest represented zip codes were 61103 (12%), 61108 (18%), and 61107 – West of Alpine
Road (14.2%). The three lowest represented zip codes were 61101 – East of Rockton Avenue
(4.7%), 61101 – West of Rockton Avenue (4.4%), and 61102 (5.5%). Table 1 provides a
complete breakdown of the sample demographic, socio-economic and community
characteristics.
2
The 2010 Census was used because this was the last time that the population of the City of Rockford was actually
measured and not extrapolated.
3
Because of differences in the racial composition of the survey respondent sample and the racial characteristics of the
population, weighting techniques were used to determine whether the results of the analyses would change substantively
if the sample racial characteristics were similar to the population racial characteristics. All of the frequency distributions
are presented using the unweighted data, and all of the multivariate analyses use the weighted data. The use of
unweighted data in the analyses of the frequency distribution of responses to questions did not substantively change any
of the conclusions reached or discussed in the analyses.
8
Table 1: Sample Demographic, Socio-economic and Community Characteristics

(Unweighted)
Characteristics Percent Characteristic Percent

Gender (N=1,256) Marital Status (N=1,251)
Female 59.2% Single 28.8%
Male 40.0% Married 54.8%
Divorced 13.6%
Race (N=1,246) Widowed 2.9%
White 85.3%
African-American 4.3% Have Children (N=1,249)
Latino/Hispanic 4.7% Yes 71.1%
Other 5.7% No 28.9%
Age (N=1,205) Zip Code (N=1,537)

18-24 6.4% 61101 – East of Rockton Ave 4.7%
25-34 19.7% 61101 – West of Rockton Ave 4.4%
35-44 22.3% 61102 5.5%
45-54 22% 61103 12%
55-64 16.4% 61104 11.8%
65-74 11% 61107 – East of Alpine Road 7.2%
75 or older 2.2% 61107 – West of Alpine Road 14.2%
61108 18%
Education (N=1,254) 61109 – North of U.S. 20 Bypass 7.3%
Less than HS Diploma 1.6% 61109 – South of U.S. 20 Bypass 5.7%
HS Diploma/GED 13.4% 61114 9.2%
Some college, no degree 26.2%
Associate’s Degree 16.4% Go to school in Rockford? (N=1,849)
Bachelor’s Degree 22.2% Yes 12.9%
Some graduate/professional 4.9% No 87.1%
education, no degree
Graduate/professional degree 15.2%
Work in Rockford? (N=1,862)
Employment (N=1,245) Yes 74.0%
Employed 79.0% No 26.0%
Unemployed 21.0%
Live in Rockford? (N=1,863)
Homeowner (N=1,251) Yes 80.3%
Own 76.6% No 19.7%
Rent 23.4%
9
Data Analysis Strategy
Data were examined using a variety of analytic techniques and methods, including
univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analyses. The results presented below provide
frequency distributions to the responses for each of the questions included on the survey,
along with a brief description of the patterns evident in the data. The order of the analyses
presented below follows the order of the questions as they appeared in the survey, and for
each specific survey question or element, the tables below include the specific number of
respondents that answered each individual question. In addition to the frequency
distributions and explanation of the patterns evident in the data, for some questions more
comprehensive and sophisticated analyses were used to examine the data. Specifically,
multivariate statistical techniques were used to determine the degree to which specific
respondent characteristics, such as race, gender, age, etc., had statistically significant and
independent relationships to the measure being examined after statistically controlling for
the influence of the other characteristics included in the analyses.
In addition to examining the responses to each individual question on the survey, attitudinal
scales were also developed and analyzed. Specifically, by combining the responses to
individual items used in the survey, three additive scales were created to represent three
attitudinal variables: (1) Rockford police procedural justice, (2) Winnebago County court
system procedural justice, and (3) police effectiveness. These three variables were created
based on face validity of the survey items, factor analyses, and prior research using
validated items (e.g., Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015; Lombardo & Donner, 2018; Mazerolle et
al., 2013; Reisig & Parks, 2000; Weitzer & Tuch, 2005). All three variables demonstrated
acceptable internal consistency (i.e. reliability) as evinced by Cronbach alpha statistics.
Towards the end of the report, analyses of these scales and more detailed descriptions of
the concepts of procedural justice and police effectiveness are presented.
Findings: Responses to Individual Questions

Below are analyses of the individual survey questions designed to measure the respondent’s
perceptions of the relationships between residents in their neighborhood, the level of crime
and safety in their neighborhood, and their perceptions of the police and the courts and
how they treat people in their neighborhood. The question number referenced in the text
and tables below correspond to the question numbers as they appear in the survey (see
Appendix 1 for a hard-copy version of the on-line survey). For each question and analysis,
10
the number of respondents that answered the question is indicated by “N=” next to the
question text in the tables below.
Questions 7 through 9
Questions 7, 8 and 9 in the survey asked respondents their level of agreement with
statements about the people in their neighborhood being “close -knit and willing to help
each other,” “having the same values and beliefs” and “getting together or talking often”
(Table 2). The majority of respondents agreed (combining the responses of “strongly agree”
and “somewhat agree”) with the first two of these questions (Questions 7 and 8), while over
one-half disagreed (combining “somewhat disagree” and “strongly disagree”) that people in
their neighborhood “get together or talk often” (Question 9). Specifically, 6 2.1% agreed
with the statement “people in my neighborhood are close-knit and willing to help each
other” and 58% agreed “people in my neighborhood have the same values and beliefs.” On
the other hand, 59% disagreed with the statement “people in my neighborhood get together
or talk to each other often.”
Table 2: Responses to Questions 7 through 9 in the Rockford Community Survey

(Unweighted)
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Total

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
Question 7: The people in my 13.2% 24.7% 49.5% 12.6% 100.0%
neighborhood are close-knit and
willing to help each other.
(N=1,382)
Question 8: People in my 14.3% 27.7% 49.1% 8.9% 100.0%
neighborhood have the same
values and beliefs. (N=1,379)
Question 9: People in my 25.0% 34.3% 32.6% 8.1% 100.0%
neighborhood get together or
talk to each other often.
(N=1,378)
Multivariate analyses (using logistic regression) were also performed to determine the
effect that age, gender, race, education level, employment status, home ownership and
where the respondent lived (i.e., zip code) had on a respondents’ agreement as to whether
11
people in their neighborhood are close-knit (Table 3). 4 These analyses found that black
respondents were less likely than white respondents to agree that their neighborhood was
close- knit, after accounting for the influence of all the other variables in the model. Male
respondents were more likely to agree that their neighborhood was close-knit than female
respondents. Older respondents were more likely to agree that their neighborhood was
close-knit than younger respondents. All other respondent characteristics, including
education, home ownership, and employment status, had no statistically significant,
independent association with their responses to this question. 5
Table 3: Multivariate Analyses of Agreement with the Statement “People in my

neighborhood are close-knit” (Weighted, N=1097) (Dependent variable: disagree=0,
agree=1)
B S.E. Wald df Exp(B)

Age (in years) .01 .01 4.51 1 1.01*
Race (White Reference Category) 14.28 2
Black (Relative to White) -.13 .16 .62 1 .88
Hispanic (Relative to White) .68 .20 11.89 1 1.98**
Gender (0=Female, 1=Male) .34 .13 6.63 1 1.40*
Education (0=High School or less, 1= Greater than High School)
-.21 .19 1.27 1 .81
Home Ownership (0= Own, 1=Rent) -.17 .15 1.37 1 .84

Employment (0=Employed, 1=Unemployed) -.19 .17 1.16 1 .83
Constant .39 .45 .76 1 1.48
2
Pseudo R =.04
*p<.05, **p<.01, and ***p<.001
4
Logistic regression was used in these analyses because the dependent variable, whether the respondent agreed or
disagreed with the statement, was coded into a dichotomous measure of agree (which combined agree and strongly
agree and was coded as “1”) versus disagree (which combined disagree and strongly disagree and was coded as “0”).
5
In addition to the base model, which included age, race, gender, education level, employment status and home
ownership, separate additional models were run where a variable indicating which zip code the respondent indicated they
lived in was added to the base model. When these models were tested, respondents who reported living in zip
codes 61102, 61104, and 61109 (North of U.S. 20 Bypass) were statistically (p<.05) less likely to agree that people in their
neighborhood were close-knit than those respondents living in the rest of Rockford as a whole, after statistically
controlling for the other variables included in the base model. On the other hand, respondents who reported living in zip
codes 61107 and 61114 were statistically (p<.05) more likely to agree that people in their neighborhood were close-knit
than those respondents living in the rest of Rockford as a whole, after statistically controlling for the other variables
included in the base model. Respondents in zip codes 61101, 61103, 61108, and 61109 (South of US 20 Bypass) were not
statistically any more or less likely to agree that people in their neighborhood were close-knit than those respondents
living in the rest of Rockford as a whole, after statistically controlling for the other variables included in the base model.
12
Multivariate analyses (using logistic regression) were also performed to examine the
relationship between respondent characteristics and a dichotomous measure of agree vs.
disagree with the statement regarding individuals in their neighborhood “sharing the same
values” (Table 4). 6 Similar to the multivariate analyses presented in Table 3 (“close -knit”),
older respondents were also more likely than younger respondents to agree that individuals
in their neighborhood “shared the same values,” after statistically accounting for the
influence of all the other variables in the model. Additionally, respondents who reported
renting were less likely to agree that individuals in their neighborhood shared the “same
values” than individuals who reported owning their home (Table 4).

neighborhood share the same values” (Weighted, N=1,096) (Dependent variable:
disagree=0, agree=1)

Age (in years) .02 .01 13.28 1 1.02***
Black (Relative to White) -.29 .16 3.23 1 .75
Hispanic (Relative to White) .30 .18 2.78 1 1.35
Gender (0=Female, 1=Male) .134 .13 1.14 1 1.15
Education (0=High School or less, 1= Greater than High
-.22 .18 1.49 1 .81
School)
Home Ownership (0= Own, 1=Rent) -.44 .14 9.40 1 .64**
Employment (0=Employed, 1=Unemployed) -.12 .17 .51 1 .886
Constant .24 .43 .31 1 1.27
2
Pseudo R =.05
*p<.05, **p<.01, and ***p<.001
The other respondent characteristics, including gender, race, education, and employment,
had no statistically significant, independent association with the responses to this
question. 7
6
7
lived in was added to the base model. When these models were tested, respondents who reported living in zip codes
13
Finally, multivariate analyses (using logistic regression) were performed to determine the
influence of respondent characteristics on whether or not they agreed with the statement
that people in their neighborhood “get together and talk often” (Table 5). 8 In these
analyses, older respondents were more likely than their younger counterparts to agree that
people in their neighborhood “get together and talk often,” after statistically controlling for
the influence of other characteristics. Moreover, those who were not employed were more
likely than those who were employed and those that indicated they rented were more likely
than their counterparts to agree that people in their neighborhood “get together and talk
often” after statistically controlling for the other characteristics of respondents. Race,
gender, and education level were not independently correlated with responses to this
question (i.e., they were not statistically significant). 9
61103, 61104, and 61109 (North of U.S.20 Bypass) were statistically (p<.05) less likely to agree that people in their
neighborhood share the same values than those respondents living in the rest of Rockford as a whole, after statistically
controlling for the other variables included in the base model. On the other hand, respondents who reported living in zip
code 61107 (West of Alpine Rd.) were statistically (p<.05) more likely to agree that people in their neighborhood share the
same values than those respondents living in the rest of Rockford as a whole, after statistically controlling for the other
variables included in the base model. Respondents in zip codes 61101, 61102, 61107 (East of Alpine Rd.), 61108, 61109
(South of U.S. 20 Bypass), and 61114 were not statistically any more or less likely to agree that people in their
neighborhood share the same values than those respondents living in the rest of Rockford as a whole, after statistically
controlling for the other variables included in the base model.
8
9
61104 and 61109 (North of U.S. 20 Bypass) were statistically (p<.05) less likely to agree that people in their neighborhood
get together and talk often than those respondents living in the rest of Rockford as a whole, after statistically controlling
for the other variables included in the base model. Respondents who reported living in zip code 61101 (East of Rockton
Avenue) were statistically (p<.05) more likely to agree that people in their neighborhood get together and talk often than
those respondents living in the rest of Rockford as a whole, after statistically controlling for the other variables included in
the base model. Respondents in all of the other zip codes, including 61101 (West of Rockton Ave.), 61102, 61103, 61104,
61107, 61108, 61109 (South of US 20 Bypass), and 61114 were not statistically any more or less likely to agree that people
in their neighborhood get together and talk often than those respondents living in the rest of Rockford as a whole, after
statistically controlling for the other variables included in the base model.
14

neighborhood get together and talk often” (Weighted, N=1,098) (Dependent variable:
disagree=0, agree=1)

Age (in years) .02 .01 11.43 1 1.02**
Hispanic (Relative to White) .12 .18 .44 1 1.12
Gender (0=Female, 1=Male) .17 .13 1.79 1 1.19
.12 .18 .47 1 1.13
School)
Home Ownership (0= Own, 1=Rent) .37 .15 6.37 1 1.45*
Employment (0=Employed, 1=Unemployed) .35 .17 4.40 1 1.42*
Constant -2.33 .44 28.22 1 .10***
Pseudo R2=.04
*p<.05, **p<.01, and ***p<.001
Questions 10 and 11
Questions 10 and 11 sought to gauge respondent views on whether those who commit
violent crime should be punished severely and/or provided with rehabilitative services. The
responses highlight the complexity of criminal justice practice and policy, and the multiple
goals and expectations that the public has regarding those who commit crime and engage in
violence (Table 6). Specifically, more than 90% of those who responded to the survey agreed
(combining “strongly agree” and “somewhat agree”) that “people who commit violent crime
should be punished severely.” Similarly, 77% agreed (combining “strongly agree” and
“somewhat agree”) that “people who commit violent crime need to be provided with
services and treatment to change their behaviors.” Although a larger portion of the
respondents “strongly agreed” with the statement regarding punishment, the survey
indicates that the community is largely supportive o f an approach that includes both
accountability (punishment) and rehabilitation (services and treatment) to reduce violence.
15
Table 6: Responses to Questions 10 through 11 in the Rockford Community Survey

(Unweighted)

Question 10: People who commit 2.5% 3.9% 18.6% 75.0% 100.0%
violent crime should be punished
severely. (N=1,398)
Question 11: People who commit 10.5% 12.6% 34.0% 43.0% 100.0%
violent crime need to be provided
with services and treatment to
change their behaviors. (N=1,399)
As was done with the previous set of questions, multivariate analyses (logistic regression)
were performed to examine the independent effect of the respondent characteristics (age,
gender, race, education level, employment status, and home ownership) and their
perception of safety in Rockford with whether or not they reported strong agreement that
people who commit violent crime should be severely punished (Table 7). 10 These analyses
found that black respondents were less likely than white respondents, and men were more
likely than women, to “strongly agree” that people who commit violent crime should be
“punished severely,” after statistically controlling for the other variables included in the
analyses. Respondents who believed that Rockford had become less safe in the past year
were much more likely to “strongly agree” that people who commit violent crime should be
“punished severely” (response to survey Question 33). Those who reported renting their
homes were less likely to “strongly agree” that people who commit violent crime should be
“punished severely,” when compared to home owners. Finally, older respondents were
more likely to “strongly agree” that people who commit violent crime should be “punished
severely,” compared to younger respondents. All of the other respondent characteristics,
including education level and employment status did not have statistically significant
influences on whether or not there was “strong agreement” regarding punis hment.
10
Logistic regression was used in these analyses because the dependent variable, whether the respondent strongly
agreed with the statement, was coded into a dichotomous measure of strongly agree (which only included the response
of strongly agree and was coded as “1”) versus not strongly agree (which combined strongly disagree, disagree and agree
and was coded as “0”). Because such a small percent of respondents did not agree with this statement, these analyses
focused on strong agreement to better understand views and attitudes.
16
Table 7: Multivariate Analyses of Agreement with the Statement “People who commit
violent crime should be punished severely” (Weighted N=1,073) (Dependent variable: not
strongly agree=0, strongly agree=1)

Age (in years) .03 .01 22.51 1 1.03***
Black (Relative to White) -.84 .18 21.74 1 .43***
Contact with Police (0=No Contact, 1= Contact) .05 .15 .11 1 1.05
Gender (0=Female, 1=Male) .58 .15 14.11 1 1.78***
-.29 .22 1.81 1 .75
School)
Home Ownership (0= Own, 1=Rent) -.54 .16 11.10 1 .58**
Employment (0=Employed, 1=Unemployed) -.30 .20 2.22 1 .74
Rockford Safety (0=Other, 1= Less Safe) .94 .15 37.60 1 2.56***
Constant -.22 .53 .18 1 .80
2
Pseudo R =.176
*p<.05, **p<.01, and ***p<.001
In addition to examining “strong agreement” for punishment for those who commit
violence, multivariate analyses (logistic regression) were also performed to examine the
independent effect of the respondent characteristics and their perception of safety in
Rockford with whether or not they “strongly agree” that people who commit violent crime
should be “provided with services and treatment to change their behavior” (Table 8). 11
These analyses found that black respondents and female respondents were more likely to
“strongly agree” that people who commit violent crime should be “provided with services
and treatment to change their behavior” than were white and male respondents, after
statistically controlling for the other variables included in the analyses. Also, younger
respondents were more likely to “strongly agree” that people who commit violent crime
should be “provided with services and treatment to change their behavior” than were older
respondents. In addition, those unemployed and renters were more likely to “strongly
agree” that people who commit violent crime should be “provided with services and
11
Logistic regression was used in these analyses because the dependent variable, whether or not the respondent strongly
agreed with the statement, was coded into a dichotomous measure of strongly agree (which only included the response
of strongly agree and was coded as “1”) versus not strongly agree (which combined strongly disagree, disagree and agree
and was coded as “0”). Because such a small percent of respondents did not agree with this statement, these analyses
focused on strong agreement to better understand views and attitudes.
17
treatment to change their behavior” than were employed respondents and homeowners.
Finally, respondents who perceived that Rockford had become less safe in the past year
were less likely to “strongly agree” that people who commit violent crime should be
“provided with services and treatment to change their behavior” than those who did not
think Rockford had become less safe. All of the other respondent characteristics, including
education and Hispanics relative to Whites did not have statistically significant influences on
whether or not there was “strong agreement” regarding services and treatment.
Table 8: Multivariate Analyses of Agreement with the Statement “People who commit
violent crime need to be provided with services and treatment to change their behaviors”
(Weighted, N=1,082) (Dependent variable: not strongly agree=0, strongly agree=1)

Age (in years) -.03 .01 38.95 1 .97***
Black (Relative to White) .71 .17 17.09 1 2.05***
Contact with Police (0=No Contact, 1= Contact) -.26 .14 3.76 1 .77
Gender (0=Female, 1=Male) -.43 .13 10.29 1 .65**
.32 .18 3.07 1 1.37
School)
Home Ownership (0= Own, 1=Rent)
.51 .15 11.51 1 1.67**
Employment (0=Employed, 1=Unemployed) .36 .18 3.94 1 1.43*

Rockford Safety (0=Other, 1= Less Safe) -.33 .13 6.13 1 .72*
Constant 1.04 .46 5.10 1 2.84*
Pseudo R2=.14
*p<.05, **p<.01, and ***p<.001
18
Questions 12 and 13
Question 12 asked respondents where they get their “information about crime in the
community,” and respondents were able to select all of the information sources included in
the survey that applied (Table 9). Because respondents could select multiple categories, the
percentages in Table 9 add up to more than 100%. The three most frequently cited sources
of information about crime among those who completed the survey were “Television news”
(70.9%), “Scanner Social Media” (60.1%), and “Personal friends social media” (41.7%) (Table
9). Question 13 in the survey asked respondents to select “which 3 sources of information
are the most reliable.” The three most frequently cited sources of reliable information
among those who completed the survey were “Television news” (52.2%), “Scanner social
media” (37.3%), and “City of Rockford websites” (26.4%) (Table 10).
Table 9: Responses to Question 12 in the Rockford Community Survey, Unweighted
Question 12: Where do you get information about the crime in Yes No Total
the community? (N=1,400)
Print Media (newspapers) 37.3% 62.7% 100.0%
Radio News 32.7% 67.3% 100.0%
Television News 70.9% 29.1% 100.0%
Winnebago County Websites 27.9% 72.1% 100.0%
City of Rockford Websites 37.0% 63.0% 100.0%
Official Winnebago County social media 38.1% 61.9% 100.0%
Official City of Rockford social media 25.1% 74.9% 100.0%
Scanner social media 60.1% 39.9% 100.0%
Personal friends social media 41.7% 58.3% 100.0%
Nixel 5.2% 94.8% 100.0%
NextDoor.com 30.4% 69.6% 100.0%
Other 10.7% 89.3% 100.0%
19
Question 13: Which 3 sources of information are the most Yes No Total
reliable? (N=1,369)
Print Media (newspapers) 25.2% 74.8% 100.0%
Radio News 18.4% 81.6% 100.0%
Television News 52.2% 47.8% 100.0%
Winnebago County Websites 15.0% 85.0% 100.0%
City of Rockford Websites 26.4% 73.6% 100.0%
Official Winnebago County social media 22.1% 77.9% 100.0%
Official City of Rockford social media 14.2% 85.8% 100.0%
Scanner social media 37.3% 62.7% 100.0%
Personal friend’s social media 15.6% 84.4% 100.0%
Nixel 3.0% 97.0% 100.0%
NextDoor.com 10.9% 89.1% 100.0%
Other 9.1% 90.9% 100.0%
Questions 14 and 15
Question 14 asked respondents to indicate how concerned they were, on a scale from “not
concerned at all” to “very concerned,” regarding a wide range of possible crime and public
order issues within their neighborhood. These issues ranged from loud music from cars and
loitering to serious crimes, such as shootings, robbery and domestic violen ce (Table 11).
Combining the ratings of “concerned” and “very concerned” into a “combined concerned”
measure, 50% or more of respondents indicated they were “combined concerned” about 5
specific issues. From highest to lowest, these issues were shooting (58.3% “combined
concerned”), burglary (57.3% “combined concerned”), robbery/mugging (55.6% “combined
concern”), drug sales (53.3% “combined concern”), and speeding/traffic issues (50.9%
“combined concern”). In general, the levels of concern across these crime issues did not
vary across the racial characteristics of the respondents.
20
Question 14: How Not at all Not very Somewhat Concerned Very Total
concerned are you concerned concerned concerned Concerned
about the
following
problems
occurring in your
neighborhood?
Loud music from 28.5% 27.3% 18.3% 11.7% 14.2% 100.0%
automobiles
(N=1,363)
Burglary 4.6% 13.4% 24.7% 22.8% 34.5% 100.0%
(N=1,368)
Sale of drugs 12.5% 19.4% 14.8% 16.9% 36.4% 100.0%
N=1,364)
Use of drugs 14.3% 22.4% 15.9% 16.8% 30.6% 100.0%
(N=1,352)
Prostitution in 36.7% 26.7% 11.5% 8.1% 17.0% 100.0%
public places
(N=1,358)
Speeding/traffic 10.7% 16.0% 22.4% 20.9% 30.0% 100.0%
issues (N=1,360)
Robbery/mugging 9.7% 17.1% 17.7% 18.2% 37.4% 100.0%
(N=1,357)
Shootings 11.8% 16.2% 13.7% 14.6% 43.7% 100.0%
(N=1,367)
Domestic violence 10.9% 19.9% 20.7% 18.2% 30.4% 100.0%
(N=1,354)
Loitering/panhand 27.0% 25.1% 17.9% 12.2% 17.9% 100.0%
ling (N=1,353)
Disorderly youth 16.2% 21.1% 19.2% 16.6% 26.9% 100.0%
(N=1,357)
Auto theft 12.8% 21.8% 20.2% 18.0% 27.2% 100.0%
(N=1,363)
Gang activity 19.8% 18.0% 13.7% 13.8% 34.7% 100.0%
(N=1,365)
Other (N=765) 30.2% 13.7% 18.7% 11.1% 26.3% 100.0%
21
Question 15 was similar to Question 14, but asked respondents how much attention, on a
scale from “little/no attention” to “most attention,” they felt police should give to the same
wide range of crime and public order issues within their neighborhood (Table 12).
Combining the ratings of “more attention” and “most attention” into an “attention”
measure, the patterns were almost identical to the levels of concern expressed in Question
14: there were six specific topics that more than 50% of respondents indicated they felt
needed “attention” by the police in their neighborhood. From highest to lowest, were
shootings (66.1% needs attention), robbery (60.4%), gang activity (57.6%), burglary (56.7%),
drug sales (55.5%), and domestic violence (53.5%). In general, these responses did not vary
across the racial characteristics of the respondents, with the exception of disorderly youth
and domestic violence. For disorderly youth, 54% of black respondents felt attention (“more
attention” and “most attention” combined) needed to be paid to this problem, compared to
42% of white respondents. For domestic violence, 60% of black respondents, 52% of white
respondents, and 42% of Hispanic respondents felt attention (“more attention” and “most
attention” combined) needed to be paid to this problem.
Question 15: How much Little/no Occasional Routine More Most Total
attention should the police Attention Attention Attention Attention Attention
give the following
problems in your
neighborhood?
Loud music from 36.6% 26.2% 22.7% 11.4% 3.1% 100.0%
automobiles (N=1,362)
Burglary (N=1,355) 3.0% 10.1% 30.2% 28.7% 28.0% 100.0%
Sale of drugs (N=1,361) 11.1% 11.5% 22.0% 22.9% 32.6% 100.0%
Use of drugs (N=1,345) 15.2% 14.4% 28.1% 18.2% 24.1% 100.0%
Prostitution in public 28.8% 17.0% 28.1% 12.1% 14.1% 100.0%
places (N=1,351)
Speeding/traffic issues 10.0% 17.3% 30.9% 20.5% 21.4% 100.0%
(N=1,362)
Robbery/mugging 7.3% 10.6% 21.7% 22.7% 37.7% 100.0%
(N=1,362)
Shootings (N=1,363) 9.5% 8.4% 15.9% 13.5% 52.6% 100.0%
Domestic violence 7.9% 12.1% 26.6% 20.5% 33.0% 100.0%
(N=1,348)
Loitering/panhandling 25.0% 22.4% 29.8% 10.8% 11.9% 100.0%
(N=1,347)
Disorderly youth (N=1,357) 13.4% 16.4% 27.9% 21.3% 21.0% 100.0%
Auto theft (N=1,351) 10.4% 13.0% 29.0% 21.6% 26.0% 100.0%
Gang activity (N=1,364) 14.1% 9.8% 18.5% 15.2% 42.4% 100.0%
Other (N=716) 29.2% 10.6% 30.2% 9.5% 20.5% 100.0%
22
Question 16 in the survey asked respondents to describe how much crime had impacted
them in the past year, with possible responses ranging from “not at all” to “a lot” (Table
13). Roughly one out of seven respondents (13.4%) indicated that crime had impacted them
“a lot” in the past year, and another 26.8% indicated that crime had “moderately” impacted
them this past year. Thus, combining “a lot” and “moderately, ” under 50% of respondents
indicated that crime had impacted them in the last year (Table 13). Due to the nature of the
survey methodology and the scope of the questions, it was not possible to determine
specifically how crime had impacted respondents, such as making them fearful, causing
them to change their behaviors, such as walking alone, etc.
Not A little Moderately A lot Total

at all
Question 16: In the last year, how much 24.0% 35.9% 26.8% 13.4% 100.0%
has crime impacted you? (N=1,382)
Questions 17 and 18 asked respondents their perceptions of how levels of crime had
changed in their neighborhood in the past year, with Question 17 being broadly worded as
“crime in general,” and Question 18 specifically asking about “violent crime” (Table 14).
Under one-half (42.3%) felt that “crime in general” had increased (combining “increased
some” with “increased a lot”) and under one-half (32.4%) of respondents felt that “violent
crime” had increased in their neighborhood in the past year. Overall, the largest proportion
of respondents felt as though “crime in general” and “violent crime” had stayed the same in
the past year.
23
Table 14: Responses to Questions 17 through 18 in the Rockford Community Survey,

Unweighted
Decreased Decreased Stayed Increased Increased Total

a lot some about the some a lot
same
Question 17: How have levels 2.3% 5.8% 49.5% 27.4% 14.9% 100.0%
of crime in general changed
in your neighborhood over
the PAST YEAR? (N=1,373)
Question 18: How have levels 3.2% 6.7% 57.8% 20.4% 12.0% 100.0%
of violent crime changed in
your neighborhood over the
PAST YEAR? (N=1,364)
Multivariate analyses (logistic regression) were performed to examine the independent

relationship between the respondent characteristics, including age, gender, race, education
level, employment status, home ownership and where the respondent lived (i.e., zip code),
and whether or not they felt that “crime in general” had increased in their neighborhood. 12
These analyses revealed that gender, black relative to white, and several zip codes all had
statistically significant relationships with whether or not the respondent perceived that
crime in general had increased in their neighborhood in the past year, with men being less
likely than women to perceive that crime increased (not presented in tabular form).
Residents from seven of the zip codes (61101 East, 61101 West, 61103, 61104, 61107 West,
61108, and 61109 North) all felt crime had increased in their neighborhood. All of the other
respondent characteristics, including age, education level, employment status, and home
ownership, did not have a statistically significant relationship to perceptions of crime in
general increasing in the respondents’ neighborhood over the past year after statistically
controlling for the influence of the other variables in the analyses.
Similarly, multivariate analyses (logistic regression) wer e performed to examine the

independent relationship between the respondent characteristics, including age, gender,
race, education level, employment status, home ownership and where the respondent lived
(i.e., zip code), and whether or not they felt that “violent crime” had increased in their
12
Logistic regression was used in these analyses because the dependent variable, whether or not the respondent felt that
crime in general had increased in their neighborhood during the past year, was coded into a dichotomous measure of
increased (which combined increased and increased a lot and was coded as “1”) versus did not increase (which combined
decreased a lot, decreased, and stayed about the same and was coded as “0”).
24
neighborhood (Table 15). 13 Similar to the multivariate analyses examining “crime in

general,” gender had a statistically significant relationship to whether or not they perceived
that violent crime had increased in their neighborhood in the past year, with men being less
likely than women to perceive violent crime to have increased (Table 15).
Table 15: Multivariate Analyses of Agreement with the Statement “Violent Crime in my
Neighborhood in the past year” Increased (Weighted, N=1,084) (Dependent variable:
violent crime did not increase=0, violent crime increased=1)

Age (in years) -.01 .01 5.76 1 .99*
Black (Relative to White) -.83 .20 16.58 1 .44***
Gender (0=Female, 1=Male) -.34 .14 5.92 1 .71*
Education (0=High School or less, 1= Greater than High School)
-.10 .19 .30 1 .90
Home Ownership (0= Own, 1=Rent) .08 .16 .25 1 1.08
Employment (0=Employed, 1=Unemployed) .12 .19 .42 1 1.13
Constant -.10 .47 .05 1 .90
2
Pseudo R = .05
*p<.05, **p<.01, and ***p<.001
In addition to gender, white respondents and younger respondents perceived that violent
crime had increased in their neighborhood after stati stically accounting for the influence of
the respondent characteristics included in the analyses. Other respondent characteristics
like Hispanics in relation to whites, education, home ownership, and employment status
level had no influence on whether or not the respondent perceived violent crime had
increased or decreased in their neighborhood. 14
13
Logistic regression was used in these analyses because the dependent variable, whether or not the respondent felt that
violent crime had increased in their neighborhood during the past year, was coded into a dichotomous measure of
increased (which combined increased and increased a lot and was coded as “1”) versus did not increase (which combined
decreased a lot, decreased, and stayed about the same and was coded as “0”).
14
ownership, separate additional models were run where a variable indicating which zip code the respondent stated they
61101 (West of Rockton Ave.), 61104, and 61109 (North of U.S. 20 Bypass) were statistically (p<.05) more likely to feel
that violent crime had increased in their neighborhood over the past year than those respondents living in the rest of
Rockford as a whole, after statistically controlling for the other variables included in the base model. On the other hand,
25
Questions 19 through 21 asked respondents their views regarding various behaviors of

people in their neighborhood and how often they witnessed specific forms of crime or
disorder. Questions 19 and 20 asked respondents how much they disagreed or agreed with
statements regarding people carrying guns and joining gangs in their neighborhood (Table
16). The majority (64.8%) of those who completed the survey indicated that they agreed
(combining “strongly agree” with “somewhat agree”) that people in their neighborhood
“sometimes carry guns.” On the other hand, less than one-half (37.9%) agreed (again,
combining “strongly agree” with “somewhat agree”) that people in their neighborhood “join
gangs.”

Unweighted

Question 19: In my 14.2% 21.0% 45.2% 19.6% 100.0%
neighborhood,
sometimes people carry
guns. (N=1,358)
Question 20: In my 32.7% 29.3% 29.2% 8.7% 100.0%
neighborhood, people
join gangs. (N=1,351)
Question 21 asked those who completed the survey how often in the past year they
witnessed specific forms of criminal behavior, ranging from vandalism/graffiti to drug selling
to hearing gunshots (Table 17). The majority of people who completed the survey did not
see these forms of criminal behavior very often, with most reporting seeing drug selling,
vandalism, people carrying guns or hearing gunshots less than a few times a month (i.e.,
combining those who reported seeing these once a month or never). Interestingly, while
64.8% of the survey respondents indicated that they agreed that people in their
neighborhood sometimes carry guns (Question 19), 59% reported never seeing people
carrying a gun in the past year. Similarly, while 53.3% of respondents reported that they
respondents who reported living in zip codes 61107 (East of Alpine Road), 61109 (South of U.S. 20 Bypass), and 61114
were statistically (p<.05) less likely to feel that violent crime had increased in their neighborhood over the past year than
the base model. Respondents in zip codes 61101 (East of Rockton Ave.), 61102, 61103, 61107 (West of Alpine Road), and
61108 were not statistically any more or less likely to feel that violent crime had increased in their neighborhood over the
past year than those respondents living in the rest of Rockford as a whole, after statistically controlling for the other
variables included in the base model.
26
were concerned (concerned plus very concerned) about drug selling in their neighbor hood
(Question 14), almost half (43.8%) reported in Question 21 that they never witnessed
people buying and selling drugs in their neighborhood, and an additional 2 0.3% reported
seeing this behavior once a month or less.
Question 21: In the Never Once a A few Weekly Daily Total

past year, how often month or times a
have you witnessed: less month
People buying and 43.8% 20.3% 13.6% 10.6% 11.7% 100.0%
selling drugs in your
neighborhood
(N=1,355)
People committing 67.0% 21.6% 7.7% 2.2% 1.5% 100.0%
vandalism or
drawing graffiti
(N=1,356)
Sight or sound of 25.0% 25.8% 22.9% 15.0% 11.3% 100.0%
gunshots (N=1,360)
People carrying a 59.0% 20.2% 8.7% 5.7% 6.5% 100.0%
gun (N=1,341)
Questions 22 and 23 asked those completed the survey how often, ranging from “never” to
“daily,” they saw the police in their neighborhood, and how often they would like to see the
police (Table 18). Overall, one-quarter (24.8%) of survey respondents reported that they
saw the police in their neighborhood on a weekly basis ( “weekly” and “daily” combined),
but nearly 70% would like to see the police in their neighborhood on a weekly (“weekly” and
“daily” combined) basis. While only about 10% report seeing police in their neighborhood
on a daily basis, about 40% of respondents would like to see the police on a daily basis in
their neighborhood.
27

Unweighted
Never Once a A few times Weekly Daily Total

month or a month
less
Question 22: How often 18.3% 34.4% 22.5% 15.1% 9.7% 100.0%
do you see police in
your neighborhood?
(N=1,374)
Question 23: How often 3.4% 7.9% 19.2% 29.4% 40.1% 100.0%
would you like to see
police in your
neighborhood?
(N=1,372)
Question 24 asked respondents how satisfied, from very dissatisfied to very satisfied, they
were with policing in their neighborhood. Among those who completed the survey, 55%
reported that they were satisfied (“very satisfied” combined with “somewhat satisfied”)
(Table 19). Most respondents were somewhere in the middle in terms of their level of
satisfaction with policing in their neighborhood, with roughly 33% being at either extreme
of “very satisfied” or “very dissatisfied.”
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Total

Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Satisfied
Question 24: 18.9% 26.1% 40.1% 14.9% 100.0%
How satisfied
are you with
policing in
your
neighborhood?
(N= 1,373)

level, employment status, home ownership, their perception of whether or not crime had
increased in their neighborhood, if they had contact with the police, and where the
respondent lived (i.e., zip code), and whether or not they were satisfied with policing in
28
their neighborhood (Table 20). 15 In these analyses, there were five respondent
characteristics that were independently related to their satisfaction with policing in their
neighborhood (Question 17). The older the respondent, the more likely they were to be
satisfied with policing in their neighborhood, and those who felt as though crime had
increased in their neighborhood were less likely to be satisfied with policing in their
neighborhood. Black respondents and younger respondents were less likely than white and
older respondents to be satisfied with policing in their neighborhood. Those respondents
who had no contact with the police in the past year were more likely to be satisfied with
policing in their neighborhood. All of the other demographic and socio -economic
characteristics, including Hispanics in relation to whites, education level, home ownership,
and employment status had no statistically significant relationship to whether or not they
were satisfied with policing in their neighborhood. 16
15
Logistic regression was used in these analyses because the dependent variable, whether or not the respondent was
satisfied with policing in their neighborhood, was coded into a dichotomous measure of satisfied (which combined
somewhat satisfied with satisfied and was coded as “1”) versus not satisfied (which combined somewhat dissatisfied with
very dissatisfied and was coded as “0”).
16
ownership, separate additional models were run where a variable indicating which zip code the respondent stated they
61107 (East of Alpine Road) and 61114 were statistically (p<.05) more likely to report feeling satisfied with policing than
respondents living in the rest of Rockford as a whole. Respondents in zip codes 61101, 61102, 61103, 61104, 61107 (West
of Alpine Rd.), 61108, and 61109 were not statistically any more or less likely to report feeling satisfied with policing than
the base model.
29
Table 20: Multivariate Analyses of “Satisfaction with the policing” in respondent

neighborhood (Weighted, N=1,086) (Dependent variable: not satisfied=0, satisfied=1)

Age (in years) .12 .01 6.03 1 1.01*
Black (Relative to White) -.40 .17 5.45 1 .67*
Gender (0=Female, 1=Male) -.52 .13 15.04 1 .59***
Education (0=High School or less, 1= Greater than High -.19 .18 1.02 1 .83
School)
Home Ownership (0= Own, 1=Rent) .29 .15 3.58 1 1.34
Employment (0=Employed, 1=Unemployed) .04 .18 .06 1 1.05
Contact with Police (0=No, 1=Yes) -.57 .14 16.80 1 .57***
General Level of Crime in Neighborhood (0=Other, 1= -1.19 .14 71.04 1 .31***
Increased)
Constant .90 .47 3.76 1 2.47
2
Pseudo R =.15
*p<.05, **p<.01, and ***p<.001
Respondents were also asked in Question 25 if they had contact with the Rockford Police
Department in the past year, and if so, how often. The majority of respondents to the
survey (56.7%) indicated that they had contact with the Rockford Police Department in the
past year, while 43.3% reported having no contact (Table 21). Most people who did report
having contact reported 1 to 3 instances, while 7.2% of all respondents to the survey
reported being in contact with the Rockford Police Department 7 or more times in the past
year. The specific reasons for the most recent contact varied, ranging from interacting with
police because the respondent was a witness (19.8%), a crime victim (16.7%), through a
neighborhood watch program (11.9%), or at a community/special event (12%) (Table 22).
More than one-quarter (26.3%) of those reporting contact with the police in the past year
indicated the reason as “other.”
30
0 times 1-3 4-6 7 or Total

times times more
times
Question 25: How many times have 43.3% 41.9% 7.6% 7.2% 100.0%
you had contact with the Rockford
Police Department in the past year?
(N=1,377)
Question 26: What was your most recent contact with Rockford police? (N=7 56) Percent
Crime victim 16.7%
Witness 19.8%
Motor vehicle crash 5.6%
Neighborhood watch 11.9%
Traffic stop (traffic violation/warning citation) 5.4%
Pedestrian stop (non-vehicle stop and questioning) 1.1%
Arrested 1.2%
Community/special event 12.0%
Other 26.3%
Total 100%
For those who completed the survey and also indicated that they had contact with the
Rockford Police Department, follow-up questions were asked to gauge their level of
satisfaction (Table 23) and attitudes with how they were treated during their most recent
encounter with the police (Table 24). For example, Question 27 asked how satisfied they
were with how they were treated by the officer, and 42% reported that they were “very
satisfied,” and an additional 28.2% indicated that they were “somewhat satisfied.” Thus,
more than 70% reported that they were satisfied with how they were treated, while
approximately 29% were dissatisfied (Table 23).
31
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Total

Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Satisfied
Question 27: Thinking of your 16.1% 13.7% 28.2% 42.0% 100.0%
latest experience with police,
and taking the whole experience
into account how SATISFIED are
you with the way you were
treated by the officer during
your encounter? (N=752)
Again, among those who completed the survey and had contact with the police, the survey
asked how much they agreed or disagreed with statements regarding the police officer’s
clarity in explaining their actions and whether they appeared to know what they were doing
(Questions 28 and 29, Table 24). As with the previous question, the majority responded to
these statements favorably, with almost 73% agreeing (“strongly agree” combined with
“somewhat agree”) that the officer “clearly explained the reasons for his/her actions” and
almost 76% agreed (“strongly agree” and “somewhat agree” combined) that “the offer
appeared to know what he/she was doing.”

Unweighted

Question 28: During the 13.8% 13.6% 28.4% 44.2% 100.0%
encounter, the officer clearly
explained the reasons for
his/her actions. (N=740)
Question 29: During the 12.1% 12.1% 27.9% 47.9% 100.0%
encounter, the offer
appeared to know what
he/she was doing. (N=743)
While the previous three questions (Questions 27 to 29) were only asked of respondents to the
survey who reported that they had contact with the police over the past year, Question 30 asked all
respondents to indicate their level of agreement, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly
agree,” to various statements about the Rockford Police (Table 25). Included in these statements
were: “Police treat residents with respect,” “The police are honest,” “Police treat people fairly,”
32
“Police care about the community,” “Police treat everyone in Rockford equally,” “Police take the time
to listen to people,” and “Police take the time to listen to people.” Across all of these statements, the
majority of those who completed the survey responded favorably, agreeing (“strongly agree” and
“somewhat agree” combined) with these statements. Although the majority of respondents agreed
with all of the statements, there were two statements where a relatively large portion of those who
completed the survey indicated that they did not agree (“somewhat disagree” and “strongly
disagree” combined): “Police treat everyone in Rockford equally” and “Police take the time to listen
to people.” Specifically, 45.4% of respondents did not agree with the statement “Police treat
everyone in Rockford equally” and 34.9% disagreed with the statement “Police take the time to listen
to people.”
Question 30: Please indicate Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Total

how much you agree or Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
disagree about the following
statements about the
Rockford Police:
Police treat residents with 8.0% 13.1% 39.4% 39.5% 100.0%
respect (N=1,236)
The police are honest 10.7% 16.3% 38.7% 34.3% 100.0%
(N=1,243)
Police treat people fairly 11.3% 18.0% 37.7% 33.0% 100.0%
(N=1,243)
Police care about the 9.6% 13.1% 35.4% 41.9% 100.0%
community (N=1,241)
Police treat everyone in 22.0% 23.4% 29.5% 25.0% 100.0%
Rockford equally (N=1,234)
Police take the time to listen 15.0% 19.9% 37.6% 27.5% 100.0%
to people (1,228)
Question 31
Similar to Question 30, Question 31 asked all respondents their level of agreement with various
statements about the Winnebago County Court System. These statements included: “The court
System treats people with respect”, “The court system is honest”, “The court system treats people
fairly”, “The court system cares about the community”, “The court system treats everyone in
Rockford equally”, and “The court system takes time to listen to people” (Table 26). Across all but
33
two of these statements, the majority (50% or more) of those who completed the survey responded
favorably, agreeing (“strongly agree” and “somewhat agree” combined) with these statements. For
one of the statements, “The court system treats everyone in Rockford equally,” less than 50% of the
respondents agreed (42.5%), and 57.5% disagreed. For one of the statements, “The court system
takes the time to listen to people,” less than 50% of the respondents agreed (46.7%), and 53.3%
disagreed. Further, although the majority of respondents agreed (strongly or somewhat combined)
with all but two of the statements, there was one other statements where a relatively large portion
of those who completed the survey indicated that they did not agree (“somewhat disagree” and
“strongly disagree” combined). Specifically, 48.2% disagreed with “The court system treats people
fairly”.
Table 26: Responses to Question 31 in the Rockford Community Surv ey, Unweighted
Question 31: Please indicate Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Total

how much you agree or Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
disagree about the following
statements about the
Winnebago County court
system:
The court system treats 13.8% 20.6% 45.5% 20.1% 100.0%
people with respect (N=1,210)
The court system is honest 17.5% 23.0% 39.8% 19.7% 100.0%
(N=1,209)
people fairly (N=1,211)
The court system cares about 21.2% 25.0% 34.9% 18.9% 100.0%
the community (N=1,209)
everyone in Rockford equally
(N=1,207)
The court system takes the 22.4% 30.9% 32.0% 14.7% 100.0%
time to listen to people
(N=1,200)
Question 32
The survey also asked all respondents to rate the Rockford Police, on a scale from “very
poor” to “very good,” across a variety of tasks, including fighting crime, being visible,
treating people fairly and being available when you need them. The ratings by respondents
34
to this question were generally moderate to positive, depending on the specific task (Table
27). For example, while over one-half (56.9%) felt that the police were “satisfactory” or
better at fighting crime, a combined 40.5% rated the police as poor (“poor” or “very poor”
combined) at fighting crime. The strongest ratings of the police were in regards to the
question regarding the police “treating people fairly,” with 74.2% rating the police as
“satisfactory” or better on this measure.
Question 32: Very Poor Satisfactory Good Very Total

How good are Poor Good
the Rockford
police at:
Fighting crime 14.8% 25.7% 31.4% 18.9% 9.1% 100.0%
(N=1,235)
Being visible in 12.5% 26.4% 31.5% 18.4% 11.3% 100.0%
the streets
(N=1,236)
Treating people 10.4% 15.4% 38.0% 21.6% 14.6% 100.0%
fairly (N=1,230)
Being available 17.5% 19.9% 33.0% 17.7% 11.8% 100.0%
when you need
them (N=1,229)
Question 33
Finally, those who completed the survey were asked “In the past year, has Rockford become
a safer place to live/work,” with possible responses on a scale from “much less safe” to
“much more safe,” as well as “about the same” (Table 28). Roughly half (50.5%) of those
who completed the survey perceived that Rockford as a whole had become a less safe place
(combining “much less safe” with “less safe”) to live/work in the past year, and just over
35% of the respondents felt as though the level of safety in Rockford was “about the same”
in the past year (Table 28). Interestingly, while 50.5% of respondents perceived Rockford as
becoming less safe over the past year, when asked about their perceptions of how crime
had changed in their neighborhood in the past year (Questions 17 and 18), a smaller percent
(42.3%) felt that “crime in general” had increased and less than one-half (32.5%) felt that
35
violent crime had increased (Table 28). Thus, there may be some subtle differences in the
perception of crime between what respondents see occurring in their own neighborhood
versus the city as a whole.
Table 28: Responses to Question 33 in the Rockford Community Survey
Much Less About More Much Total

less safe the safe more
safe same safe
Question 33: In the 26.8% 23.7% 35.1% 12.6% 1.8% 100.0%
past year, has
Rockford become a
safer place to
live/work?
(N=1,245)

level, employment status, home ownership, their perception of whether or not violent
crime had increased in their neighborhood, and where the respondent lived (i.e., zip code),
and whether or not they felt Rockford had become a less safe place to live/work (Table
29). 17 In these analyses, there were four respondent characteristics that were
independently related to whether or not they felt Rockford had become a less safe place to
live/work: gender, whether or not they perceived that violent crime had increased in their
neighborhood in the past year, employment status, and age. (Question 17). Women were
more likely than men to feel that Rockford had become a less safe place to live/work, and
those who felt as though violent crime had increased in their neighborhood were more likely
to feel as though Rockford had become less safe. Those who were not employed were more
likely to feel as though Rockford had become less safe. Older participants were less likely to
feel as though Rockford had become less safe. All of the other demographic and socio-
economic characteristics, including race, education level, and home ownership had no
statistically significant relationship to whether or not the respondent felt Rockford had
become a less safe place to live/work.
17
Logistic regression was used in these analyses because the dependent variable, whether or not the respondent felt
Rockford had become less safe, was coded into a dichotomous measure of less safe (which combined much less safe with
less safe and was coded as “1”) versus not less safe (which combined about the same, more safe, and much more safe and
was coded as “0”).
36
Table 29: Multivariate Analyses Response to “Has Rockford become a Safer Place to
Live/Work” (Weighted, N=1,079) (Dependent variable: not less safe=0, less safe=1)

Age (in years) -.02 .01 8.76 1 .98**
Gender (0=Female, 1=Male) -.33 .14 5.49 1 .72*
Education (0=High School or less, 1= Greater than
-.37 .19 3.57 1 .69
High School)
Home Ownership (0= Own, 1=Rent) -.02 .16 .01 1 .98
Employment (0=Employed, 1=Unemployed) .73 .20 14.07 1 2.08***
Level of Violent Crime in Neighborhood (0=Other, 1=
2.11 .15 189.02 1 8.22***
Increased)
Constant -.18 .49 .14 1 .83
Pseudo R2=.29
*p<.05, **p<.01, and ***p<.001
Measuring Procedural Justice: Introduction and Methods

Agents of the criminal justice system, particularly the police, require voluntary cooperation
from the general public to be effective in controlling crime and maintaining order. Research
shows that citizens are more likely to comply and cooperate with police and obey the law
when they view the police as legitimate (e.g., Tyler, 2006; Tyler et al., 2007). And one of the
most effective pathways that the police use to increase citizen perceptions of legitimacy is
through the use of procedural justice processes within their interactions with citizens (e.g.,
Gau et al., 2012; Mazerolle et al., 2013). In the context of focused deterrence, procedural
justice practices can facilitate garnering community buy-in and support.
Thibaut and Walker (1975) first used the term ‘procedural justice’ to refer to one’s
perception of treatment during decision-making processes. In the field of policing, renewed
academic interest in procedural justice emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s when
police agencies throughout the world were implementing community policing initiatives
37
while incidents of police corruption and misconduct (e.g., racial profiling, excessive force)
pervaded the public conscience (Kelling & Moore, 1988; Reiner, 1992). Tyler (2004, p. 91)
argues that “the legitimacy of authorities and institutions is rooted in public views about
the appropriateness of the manner in which the police exercise their authority.” Procedural
justice refers to the idea of fairness in the processes that resolve dis putes and allocate
resources. It is a concept that, when embraced, promotes positive organizational change,
bolsters good relations with the community, and enhances officer safety. Thus, procedural
justice describes a central way in which the police can ex ercise this authority in a fair and
just way through both the “quality of treatment” and the “quality of the decision making
process” (Reisig et al., 2007, p. 1006). In recent research, procedural justice has been
operationalized as the way in which police treat citizens and the fairness of the decisions
made (e.g., Reisig et al., 2007; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003).
An important distinction is made in the research between procedural justice and distributive
justice. In the context of policing, distributive justice refers to perceptions regarding the
fairness of the distribution of police services and activities between different communities,
groups and individuals (Jonathon-Zamir & Weisburd, 2013). So, procedural justice refers to
the process (i.e. the interaction in police-citizen encounters, while distributive justice refers
to the outcome/disposition of the police-citizen encounter (e.g., stop vs. no stop, citation
issued vs. warning; arrest vs. no arrest; force used vs. no force used).
Procedural justice comprises four essential components:

 Fairness
 Voice
 Transparency
 Impartiality
These four core factors shape police-citizen encounters and subsequently influence
perceptions of police legitimacy. First, perceptions of fairness are driven not only by
outcomes but also by the fairness and consistency of the processes used to reach those
outcomes. Often, the outcome of an interaction is less important than the interaction itself.
Simply put, the process of decision making matters. Second, all people want to be hea rd.
Involving people in the decisions that affect them gives them voice. Having voice in
situations that may be somewhat out of their control (e.g., whether they get a traffic ticket
or not) helps them to feel that their opinions matter and that someone is listening to their
side of the story, taking them seriously, and giving some consideration to their concerns.
Third, transparency means that the processes by which decisions are made unfold in the
open. People do not like to feel that their future is bein g decided upon another person’s
whim. People like to be able to see how things are unfolding so that they can come to
38
understand the ultimate result of a decision. When police decision -making is transparent,
citizens are more likely to accept officers’ decisions—even if they are unfavorable to them.
Fourth, impartiality refers to decisions that are made based on relevant evidence or data
(e.g., probable cause) rather than on personal opinion, speculation, or guesswork. The
process underlying these decisions are objective rather than subjective.
International research studies suggests that when the public perceives police decision -
making to be procedurally just, it can lead to positive outcomes. For example, it has been
shown to enhance citizen perceptions of police legitimacy and their cooperation with police
(e.g., Bradford, 2014; Mazerolle et al., 2013; Jonathon-Zamir & Weisburd, 2013), citizen
respect toward the police during the encounter (Dai et al., 2011), citizen willingness to
accept the disposition of the encounter and their satisfaction with the police (Tyler &
Wakslak, 2004), citizen trust and willingness to obey the law (Gau, 2014), and citizen
confidence in the criminal justice system (Salvatore et al., 2013). Thus, beyond the
importance of procedural justice in a focused deterrence program, procedural justice is also
important because people will comply with the law even when the police are not around
(i.e. informal social control), people will comply with police directives, people will assist
police, and people will be satisfied with the police.
Whether its police officers, prosecutors, judges, or probation/parole officers, procedural

justice practices amount to four basic actions: 1) treat people with dignity and respect
(fairness); 2) listen to what they have to say (voice); 3) make unbiased decisions
(impartiality); and 4) explain your actions (transparency).
Creation of Scales to Measure Procedural Justice, Police

Effectiveness, and Multivariate Analyses
While the previous analyses presented the survey responses to each of the individual questions, it
was also possible to combine survey questions that sought perspectives on specific concepts into
broader composite measures, or scales. Specifically, by combining the responses to individual items
used in the survey, three additive scales were created to represent three attitudinal variables: (1)
Rockford police procedural justice, (2) Winnebago County court system procedural justice, and (3)
police effectiveness. These three variables were created based on face validity of the items, factor
analyses, and prior research using validated items (e.g., Jonathan-Zamir et al., 2015; Lombardo &
Donner, 2018; Mazerolle et al., 2013; Reisig & Parks, 2000; Weitzer & Tuch, 2005). All three variables
demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (i.e. reliability) as evinced by Cronbach alpha statistics.
39
Using these scales, analyses were performed to examine the degree to which specific respondent
characteristics, including race, gender, education level, employment status, home ownership, and
whether or not the respondent had contact with the police during the past year, were
related/correlated to their scale score. Presented below is a summary of each scale, the scale average
(mean) across all respondents, and then a description of how the scale score varied across
respondent characteristics.
Police Procedural Justice
The Rockford Police Procedural Justice (PJ) scale is a five-item variable comprised of the following
items: 1) the police treat residents with respect; 2) the police are honest; 3) the police treat people
fairly; 4) the police treat everyone in Rockford equally; and 5) police take the time to listen to people
(alpha = 0.95). All individual items were measured on a four-point scale, where 1=Strongly Disagree
and 4=Strongly Agree, and the scale itself was standardized with a possible minimum score of 1, and a
maximum of 4. Higher values indicated higher perceptions of PJ, a score above a 2.5 would be
interpreted as an overall favorable score, and the overall mean of the scale across all respondents
was 2.87 (SD = 0.91, n=1,197).
When multivariate analyses (using ordinary least squares, or OLS) were performed to examine the
independent effect of the characteristics of survey respondents on their police procedural justice
scale score, a number of patterns were evident.18 First, the respondent’s gender, education level, and
employment status had no statistically discernable influence on their police procedural justice score
after statistically accounting for the influence of other respondent characteristics. However, the
analyses did reveal that race, home ownership, contact with police, and age have statistically
significant influences on the police procedural justice scale. For example, blacks had an average police
procedural justice score that was .354 points lower than the rating by all other racial groups
combined after accounting for the influence of all other respondent characteristics included in the
model (i.e., gender, education, etc.). Thus, the average PPJ score for blacks was roughly 2.44,
compared to 2.93 among white respondents. Hispanics did not have a PPJ score that was statistically
different from the rating by all other racial groups combined after controlling for the other
respondent characteristics. Further, those who indicated they rented had an average PPJ score that
was .245 points lower than those who were homeowners, after controlling for other characteristics,
and this relationship was statistically significant. Respondents who reported having contact with
18
Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was used in these analyses because the dependent variable, the Police
Procedural Justice scale, was coded as an interval-level measure, with a minimum value of 1, a maximum value of 4, a
mean of 2.78, and a standard deviation of .92. The scale also displayed a normal distribution of values.
40
police in the past year had an average PPJ score .172 points lower than those who reported no
contact. Finally, the older the respondent, the higher their rating on the PPJ scale.19
Table 30: Multivariate Analyses of Police Procedural Justice Scale (Weighted, N=1,096)
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta T
(Constant) 2.61 .19 14.09***
Age (in years) .02 .002 .25 7.76***
Gender (0=Female, 1=Male) .04 .05 .02 .71
Black relative to All Other Races (0=Other,
-.35 .07 -.15 -5.13***
1=Black)
Hispanic relative to All Other Races (0=
.07 .08 .03 .86
Other, 1= Hispanic)
Education (0=High School of less, 1=
Greater than High School) -.002 .07 -.001 -.02
Employment (0=Employed, 1=Unemployed) -.07 .07 -.03 -1.03

Home Ownership (0= Own, 1=Rent) -.25 .06 -.12 -3.95***
Contact with Police (0=No contact, 1=
-.17 .05 -.09 -3.18**
Contact)
R2=.13
*p<.05, **p<.01, and ***p<.001
19
61104 and 61109 (North of U.S. 20 Bypass) statistically (p<.05) had lower ratings of police procedural justice than those
respondents living in the rest of Rockford as a whole, after statistically controlling for the other variables included in the
base model. On the other hand, respondents who reported living in zip codes 61108 and 61114 statistically (p<.05) had
higher ratings of police procedural justice than those respondents living in the rest of Rockford as a whole, after
statistically controlling for the other variables included in the base model. Respondents in zip codes 61101, 61102, 61103,
61107, and 61109 (South of US 20 Bypass) did not have ratings of police procedural justice that were statistically any
higher or lower than those respondents living in the rest of Rockford as a whole, after statistically controlling for the other
variables included in the base model.
41
Winnebago County Court Procedural Justice
The Winnebago County court system procedural justice (alpha = 0.95) scale is a five-item variable
comprised of the following items: 1) the court system treats people with respect; 2) the court system
is honest; 3) the court system treats people fairly; 4) the court system treats everyone in Winnebago
County equally; and 5) the court system takes the time to listen to people. All items were measured
on a four-point scale where 1=Strongly Disagree and 4=Strongly Agree. Higher values indicated higher
perceptions of Winnebago Court Procedural Justice (WCPJ). Descriptive statistics (n = 1,169) indicated
a mean of 2.51 (SD = 0.91) with a minimum of 1.00 and a maximum of 4.00.
When multivariate analyses were performed to examine the independent effect of the characteristics
of survey respondents and their perceptions of safety in Rockford on the Winnebago court
procedural justice (WCPJ) rating scale, a number of patterns were evident.20 First, the respondent’s
gender, employment status, and education level had no statistically discernable influence on their
court procedural justice score after statistically accounting for the influence of other respondent
characteristics. However, the analyses did reveal that race, home ownership, age, and whether they
felt Rockford had become a less safe place did have statistically significant influences on the WCPJ
scale. Specifically, blacks had lower ratings on the court procedural justice scale than other racial
groups, and those who were renters had lower ratings on the WCPJ scale than did those respondents
who were homeowners. The older the respondent, the higher their rating on the WCPJ scale. Finally,
those who felt that Rockford had become less safe in the past year had an average rating of .45
points lower than those who did not feel it had become less safe.
20
Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was used in these analyses because the dependent variable, the Winnebago
Court Procedural Justice scale, was coded as an interval-level measure, with a minimum value of 1, a maximum value of 4,
a mean of 2.41, and a standard deviation of 0.92. The scale also displayed a normal distribution of values.
42
Table 31: Multivariate Analyses of Winnebago County Courts Procedural Justice Scale (Weighted,
N=1,079)
B Std. Error Beta t
(Constant) 2.39 .19 12.88***
Age (in years) .01 .002 .16 4.88***
Gender (0=Female, 1=Male) .07 .05 .04 1.39
-.53 .07 -.23 -7.58***
1=Black)
Hispanic relative to All Other Races (0= Other,
-.04 .08 -.02 -.56
1= Hispanic)
Education (0=High School of less, 1= Greater
-.14 .07 -.05 -1.86
than High School)
Employment (0=Employed, 1=Unemployed) .09 .07 .04 1.34
Home Ownership (0= Own, 1=Rent) -.16 .06 -.08 -2.56*
Rockford Safety (0=Other, 1= Less Safe) -.45 .05 -.24 -8.51***
R2=.15
*p<.05, **p<.01, and ***p<.001
Police Effectiveness
The police effectiveness (PE) scale is a four-item variable comprised of the following items: 1) how
good are the Rockford police at fighting crime; 2) how good are the Rockford police at being visible
on the streets; 3) how good are the Rockford police at treating people fairly; and 4) how good are the
Rockford police at being available when you need them? All items were measured on a five-point
scale, where 1=Very Poor, 3=Satisfactory, and 5=Very Good (alpha = 0.86). Higher values indicated
higher perceptions of effectiveness, and a score of 3 would be interpreted as “satisfactory.” The
overall average score on this scale was 2.94 (SD = 1.00, n=1,201).
When multivariate analyses were performed to examine the independent effect of the characteristics
of survey respondents on their police effectiveness scale score, a number of patterns were evident.21
21
Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was used in these analyses because the dependent variable, the Police
Effectiveness scale, was coded as an interval-level measure, with a minimum value of 1, a maximum value of 5, a mean of
2.89 and a standard deviation of .92. The scale also displayed a normal distribution of values.
43
First, the respondent’s gender, being Hispanic, education level, home ownership, and whether or not
they had contact with the police in the past year had no statistically discernable influence on their
police effectiveness score after statistically accounting for the influence of other respondent
characteristics. However, the analyses did find that age, being Black, employment status, and
perceptions about Rockford becoming a less safe place did have statistically significant influences on
the respondents’ police effectiveness scale rating. Older respondents had higher ratings of police
effectiveness. Black respondents and those who are unemployed had lower ratings of police
effectiveness. Finally, those who felt that Rockford was less safe had lower ratings of police
effectiveness than everyone else.
Table 32: Multivariate Analyses of Police Effectiveness (weighted, N=1,109)
B Std. Error Beta t
(Constant) 3.00 .19 15.64***
Age (in years) .02 .002 .26 8.50***
Gender (0=Female, 1=Male) -.01 .05 -.003 -.12
-.21 .07 -.08 -2.95**
1=Black)
Hispanic relative to All Other Races (0=
.03 .08 .01 .33
Other, 1= Hispanic)
Education (0=High School of less, 1=
-.04 .07 -.02 -.57
Greater than High School)
Employment (0=Employed,
-.18 .07 -.07 -2.57*
1=Unemployed)
Home Ownership (0= Own, 1=Rent) -.06 .06 -.03 -.98
Contact with Police (0=No, 1= Contact) -.05 .03 -.05 -1.83
Rockford Safety (0=other, 1=Less Safe) -.82 .05 -.41 -15.31***
R2= .24
*p<.05, **p<.01, and ***p<.001
44
References
Bradford, B. (2014). Policing and social identity: Procedural justice, inclusion and
cooperation between police and public. Policing and Society, 24(1), 22-43.
Dai, M., Frank, J., & Sun, I. (2011). Procedural justice during police -citizen encounters: The
effects of process-based policing on citizen compliance and demeanor. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 39(2), 159-168.
Gau, J. M. (2014). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A test of measurement and
structure. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(2), 187-205.
Gau, J. M., Corsaro, N., Stewart, E. A., & Brunson, R. K. (2012). Examining macro -level
impacts on procedural justice and police legitimacy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(4), 333-
343.
Jonathan-Zamir, T., Mastrofski, S. D., & Moyal, S. (2015). Measuring procedural justice in
police-citizen encounters. Justice Quarterly, 32(5), 845-871.
Jonathan-Zamir, T., & Weisburd, D. (2013). The effects of security threats on antecedents of
police legitimacy: Findings from a quasi-experiment in Israel. Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 50(1), 3-32.
Kelling, G. L., & Moore, M. H. (1988). The evolving strategy of policing. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Justice.
Lombardo, R. M., & Donner, C. M. (2018). Can community policing increase residents’
informal social control? Testing the impact of the Chicago Alternative Policing
Strategy. Police Practice and Research, 19(5), 427-442.
Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Bennett, S., & Tyler, T. R. (2013). Shaping citizen perceptions of
police legitimacy: A randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology, 51(1), 33-63.
Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Bennett, S., & Tyler, T. R. (2013). Shaping citizen perceptions of
police legitimacy: A randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology, 51(1), 33-63.
Reiner, R. (1992). Policing a postmodern society. The Modern Law Review, 55(6), 761-781.
45
Reisig, M. D., Bratton, J., & Gertz, M. G. (2007). The construct validity and refinement of
process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(8), 1005-1028.
Reisig, M. D., & Parks, R. B. (2000). Experience, quality of life, and neighborhood context: A
hierarchical analysis of satisfaction with police. Justice Quarterly, 17(3), 607-630.
Salvatore, C., Markowitz, M., & Kelly, C. E. (2013). Assessing public confidence in the
criminal justice system. International Social Science Review, 88(1), 3-16.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping
public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513-548.
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 593(1), 84-99.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Restorative justice and procedural justice: Dealing with rule
breaking. Journal of Social Issues, 62(2), 307-326.
Tyler, T. R., Callahan, P. E., & Frost, J. (2007). Armed, and dangerous (?): Motivating rule
adherence among agents of social control. Law & Society Review, 41(2), 457-492.
Tyler, T. R., & Wakslak, C. J. (2004). Profiling and police le gitimacy: Procedural justice,
attributions of motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology, 42(2), 253-282.
Weitzer, R., & Tuch, S. A. (2005). Determinants of public satisfaction with the police. Police
Quarterly, 8(3), 279-297.

2019 Crime Perception Survey Results

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

2019 Crime Perception Survey Results

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The 2019 Rockford

Center for Criminal Justice Research,

A summary of the key findings from the survey include:

Table 1: Sample Demographic, Socio-economic and Community Characteristics

Characteristics Percent Characteristic Percent

Age (N=1,205) Zip Code (N=1,537)

Data Analysis Strategy

Findings: Responses to Individual Questions

Table 2: Responses to Questions 7 through 9 in the Rockford Community Survey

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Total

Table 3: Multivariate Analyses of Agreement with the Statement “People in my

B S.E. Wald df Exp(B)

Home Ownership (0= Own, 1=Rent) -.17 .15 1.37 1 .84

Table 4: Multivariate Analyses of Agreement with the Statement “People in my

B S.E. Wald df Exp(B)

Table 5: Multivariate Analyses of Agreement with the Statement “People in my

B S.E. Wald df Exp(B)

Table 6: Responses to Questions 10 through 11 in the Rockford Community Survey

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Total

B S.E. Wald df Exp(B)

B S.E. Wald df Exp(B)

Employment (0=Employed, 1=Unemployed) .36 .18 3.94 1 1.43*

Table 9: Responses to Question 12 in the Rockford Community Survey, Unweighted

Table 10: Responses to Question 13 in the Rockford Community Survey, Unweighted

Table 11: Responses to Question 14 in the Rockford Community Survey, Unweighted

Table 12: Responses to Question 15 in the Rockford Community Survey, Unweighted

Table 13: Responses to Question 16 in the Rockford Community Survey, Unweighted

Not A little Moderately A lot Total

Table 14: Responses to Questions 17 through 18 in the Rockford Community Survey,

Decreased Decreased Stayed Increased Increased Total

Multivariate analyses (logistic regression) were performed to examine the independent

Similarly, multivariate analyses (logistic regression) wer e performed to examine the

neighborhood (Table 15). 13 Similar to the multivariate analyses examining “crime in

B S.E. Wald df Exp(B)

*p<.05, **p<.01, and ***p<.001

Questions 19 through 21 asked respondents their views regarding various behaviors of

Table 16: Responses to Questions 19 through 20 in the Rockford Community Survey,

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Total

Table 17: Responses to Question 21 in the Rockford Community Survey, Unweighted

Question 21: In the Never Once a A few Weekly Daily Total

Table 18: Responses to Questions 22 through 23 in the Rockford Community Survey,

Never Once a A few times Weekly Daily Total

Table 19: Responses to Question 24 in the Rockford Community Survey, Unweighted

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Total

Multivariate analyses (logistic regression) were performed to examine the independent

Table 20: Multivariate Analyses of “Satisfaction with the policing” in respondent

B S.E. Wald df Exp(B)

*p<.05, **p<.01, and ***p<.001

Table 21: Responses to Question 25 in the Rockford Community Survey, Unweighted

0 times 1-3 4-6 7 or Total

Table 22: Responses to Question 26 in the Rockford Community Survey, Unweighted

Table 23: Responses to Question 27 in the Rockford Community Survey, Unweighted

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Total

Table 24: Responses to Questions 28 through 29 in the Rockford Community Survey,

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Total

Table 25: Responses to Question 30 in the Rockford Community Survey, Unweighted

Question 30: Please indicate Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Total

Question 31: Please indicate Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Total

Table 27: Responses to Question 32 in the Rockford Community Survey, Unweighted

Question 32: Very Poor Satisfactory Good Very Total

Table 28: Responses to Question 33 in the Rockford Community Survey

Much Less About More Much Total

Multivariate analyses (logistic regression) were performed to examine the independent

B S.E. Wald df Exp(B)

p<.05, p<.01, and p<.001

p<.05, p<.01, and p<.001

p<.05, p<.01, and p<.001

p<.05, p<.01, and p<.001

p<.05, p<.01, and p<.001

p<.05, p<.01, and p<.001